Mr. Speaker, we know that the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has not done a thing since the last election. The time for making excuses and ducking the issue is over. The people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean want Ottawa to live up to the promises made by the ministers and by the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord before the election.

When will the Minister of Transport make good on his promise and announce the federal government's contribution to the project? All we are waiting on is him.

Mr. Speaker, I must inform the hon. member that she made no comment on this highway before my colleague, the parliamentary secretary's speech. He is the one who raised this issue in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation with a small population. Therefore it has a vested interest in international rules based trade.

Under NAFTA, government procurement over $37,500 requires a request for tenders, unless the government invokes an exception. The government did not have to break the rules to get the two Challengers as cabinet jets. They would probably have won in a fair and open competition.

Why did the government sacrifice our international moral authority for cushy cabinet convenience?

The hon. member will know of course that there is only one company that makes Canadian jets. There is only one company that makes Challenger jets. There are only four jets. We certainly were not going to have five different kinds of them. We ordered the Canadian supply. It was permitted. It is world class technology. We are proud of the workers who make this excellent product.

Mr. Speaker, these things may be true but public works cannot go around breaking the rules of procurement. Canada cannot argue that it does not like unilateral actions that break international treaties by other governments and then damage its own reputation by doing the same thing.

The government bent the rules on Cipro and on the Challengers. Which cabinet member authorized this exception to the rule?

Mr. Speaker, the rule was not broken. It is not a matter of getting an exception to the rule if it is not broken. An exception was not necessary. In fact, this contract is exempt both under WTO and under NAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, since the recent court decisions relating to child pornography there has been much discussion about the age of consent for sexual activity. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada clarify what the actual age of consent is in Canada?

Paul MacKlinParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, on age of consent there is a common misunderstanding of the criminal law treatment of this issue.

Since 1890 the age of consent for most purposes has been set at 14. The age is 18 however where the relationship is exploitive, such as in the case of prostitution, child pornography, or where there is an existing relationship of trust or authority. Any non-consensual sexual activity regardless of age is sexual assault. However, there is concern that the motion tomorrow by the opposition may in effect reduce the age of consent from 18 to 16 and we are against that.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot deduct my traffic tickets from my income tax yet a recent court ruling says that businesses can deduct fines, penalties and levies as a legitimate business expense. I find this outrageous.

Will the Minister of National Revenue agree that it undermines the deterrent value of a fine if a company can write it off as a tax deduction? Will she agree to have her department study this issue and bring forward amendments to the act so that fines and penalties that are imposed by law on a company are not allowed as legitimate tax deductions? Will she make that commitment today?

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the recent supreme court ruling. I want to assure the member and others who are interested in the subject that we are reviewing the matter at this time. It is an important issue that should be looked at.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are still waiting to benefit from the housing agreement that was signed with the provinces and the territories last year. In B.C. the provincial Liberals are diverting desperately needed housing dollars into seniors care. In Ontario they are trying to get away with group homes and care facilities while ruling out affordable housing by definition. It is a far cry from what was supposedly agreed to.

The Deputy Prime Minister has this important file. Why is he not insisting on affordable clear outcomes for affordable not for profit housing instead of letting the provinces off the hook while lining the pockets of developers? Why is this agreement--

John ManleyDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the federal government is very proud to have committed an additional $680 million to public housing to provide an opportunity for low income Canadians in every part of Canada to have access to affordable quality housing.

We continue to negotiate an agreement with the province of Ontario. The member should be assured of the fact that it is our intention to ensure as best we can that we have a significant increase in the number of units that are available in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, coming from that corner of the House, I am surprised to get a question like that.

This government has been in office for nine years. None of the cabinet ministers has been forced to resign because of this problem but we saw more than half a dozen in the few years that the Tories were in power.